<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1953 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182359</link>
    <description>Section 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 validly exempted land and buildings of the Housing Board from the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The classification between tenants of Government, local authority or Board premises and tenants of private landlords was upheld because the Board was a Government-sponsored, non-profit housing body created to address housing shortage, so the two classes were not similarly situated. The exemption bore an intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the object of rent-control legislation. The challenge under Article 14 therefore failed, and the provision was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182359</link>
      <description>Section 3-A of the Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 validly exempted land and buildings of the Housing Board from the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The classification between tenants of Government, local authority or Board premises and tenants of private landlords was upheld because the Board was a Government-sponsored, non-profit housing body created to address housing shortage, so the two classes were not similarly situated. The exemption bore an intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the object of rent-control legislation. The challenge under Article 14 therefore failed, and the provision was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182359</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>